6 ms·

This article frames this as the US vs China, but it's really been the "Western world" vs China. And the western world has been incredibly naive and uncoordinat

by tpmx 7y ago

This article frames this as the US vs China, but it's really been the "Western world" vs China. And the western world has been incredibly naive and uncoordinated when it comes to dealing with China. We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal, in some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western" values of democracy etc just by trading with us. Edit: World -> Western world.

markus_zhang 7y ago
No it's Five eyes and part of EU (excluding UK), and even US has a lot differences with EU.
- dmix 7y ago
  Sure they have differences but in this context it's very much the western democracy vs authoritarianism, where dissenting opinions are not only tolerated but they are actively protected by the state, usually via an independent judicial body - the most important thing every truly authoritarian country lacks. China's not the first nation state to be at the butting end of this debate and they won't be the last.
justicezyx 7y ago
> We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal Trust me, most Chinese people believed the same thing when they deal with other nations. You either need to label all of them being stupid and naive; or you are saying Chinese are so smarter than anyone else... The deals are never one-sided...
mc32 7y ago
That’s true, but I think unless the US acts other players will stay on the sidelines. Maybe I’ve missed it, but has the EU commenced anything that would address some of the one-sidedness? Others are either indifferent, impotent or maybe even approving of the behavior by the CCP.
Analemma_ 7y ago
Too many people bought into the Fukuyama "end of history" theory whereby free trade and free markets would automatically lead to democracy and liberal values spreading worldwide. It probably seemed like a reasonable hypothesis right after the Soviet Union fell, but at this point it's pretty clear the events of the last decade have debunked it completely. The silver lining is we're a little smarter now and will hopefully make better decisions going forward.
- mc32 7y ago
  I guess. But it’s worth mentioning that Fukuyama is no longer a Fukuyamaist himself.
  - pesmhey 7y ago
    His latest thoughts are on corruption and the difference between the rule of law and patrimonialism. All this, well before the election of Donald Trump. Truly amazing and admirable how calibrated he came back after the massive fail that was the end of history.
ajross 7y ago
> some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western" values of democracy etc just by trading with us Is that really so idealistic though? Like most folks I'm sure, I've worked with a ton of chinese nationals and expatriots over my career. And not one of them was ignorant of this nonsense. They all know it happens. They agree in principle that it's bad, they just tolerate it as part of the cost of growth. And that's not even arguably a bad trade given China's history over the past century. As the PRC's growth slows and it reaches parity with the rest of the world, we'll start to see more tension in this space (arguably that's exactly what's happening in Hong Kong right now). And there's danger there, obviously. But the problem isn't one of "ideals", "values" or "free speech". The values are already there.
jimclegg 7y ago
Not the world vs China, it has always been the West vs China, European leaders' "zero sum" mentality has made it an economic target for the better part of 2+ centuries. Please don't include the majority of the world that is benefiting from a new benevolent economic actor on the block.
- ashelmire 7y ago
  You're considering China to be a new benevolent economic actor? Can you explain what behavior you consider "benevolent"?
  - jimclegg 7y ago
    The "well planned" foreign infrastructure projects have had positive impacts on the local communities and economies. They provide access to loans from an alternative world bank at competitive rates with less strings attached. Adding depth/liquidity to global markets is beneficial to participants.
    - ashelmire 7y ago
      Which of those signifies benevolence? What foreign infrastructure projects? Surely not the ones where they lend money to foreigners but then China owns them? That's just investment, it's not benevolent. The same for providing loans. Neither of these are benevolent - they are financial tools to gain traction and influence on the world stage, as well as to make money. I don't think we can attribute any positive intent (towards the rest of the world) to these behaviors.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    If you think unparalleled manufacturing expertise at unparalleled prices isn't an economic gain for the entire world you need to open your biased eyes wider. Yes the west and china are economic rivals. This does not mean China has zero economic benefit to the world. To not see this is utter blindness.
    - 7y ago
mfer 7y ago
The world vs China? The US, Canada, the EU, and Australia make up less than 20% of the worlds population. India, the many countries of Africa and South and Central America are places I've not heard from on this. And, there is a large population there. Is it the world vs China or the parts of the world we typically listen to vs China?
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  India has had its own problems with China. Not the same as the west’s for sure, but then again they have a direct border with each other and a large territory dispute.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- guelo 7y ago
  China is applying economic pressure across the world to get its way. If they pull this shit on the US imagine what they can get away with with smaller poorer countries.
  - mfer 7y ago
    Large businesses often have rules around single sourcing of anything. They don't want that single source to cause them problems if something happens to it. For example, even if they buy 90% of their servers from HPE they may still get 10% from Dell to have multiple suppliers. It would be wise for many organizations to take that idea and apply it to countries of origin for their things. That way instability in a region doesn't threaten things back home. This doesn't help things like the NBA whose revenue model is based on bodies and eyeballs. But, it can help some industries break control... as long as they have goals other than to gain all the money.
- jimclegg 7y ago
  It takes a certain level of Eurocentricism to believe roughly 4 countries are the world.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
Native Americans were the same way when they didn't want to latch on to Western ideals. It takes a lot to learn the right way to do things including forcefully taking land and slaughter. What people don't understand is that Western democracy is the only and best way to run the world. I mean look at public transport infrastructure in the United States. Public transport in the United States is so fair and democratic that it's been over two decades and they still haven't been able to ring the Bart around the bay or build a high speed rail thanks to the government being fair and balanced. I mean look at chinas lack of human rights. They throw a few people out their homes to build an entire high speed rail network across the entire country. More people may benefit from this but it is a serious violation of human rights to move a couple people to another place. Literally borderline evil. Lifting an entire population out of poverty isn't worth giving up a fair and balanced democracy where everyone can fairly debate about a policy for 20 years before anything gets done. I'm not saying that the US is perfect. But china needs to take a good hard look at the US and realize that their way isn't the only way of doing things. I mean people in the United States aren't so biased as to insult china on every opportunity as an economic rival. People in the west are actually unbiased and have a fair and balanced outlook on the world just like the parent poster. Literally china is like a small child saying that it's the entire world against the United States. This is an immature way of solving a problem or working together.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal, in some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western" values of democracy etc just by trading with us To expand on this, the history of economic and democratic development were thought to go hand in hand. Not only had it borne out in Western Europe, it also showed traction in post-war Japan and India. So the hypothesis, that a wealthier China would become more stable and democratic wasn't insane. That hypothesis has been proven false. Part of this is the reduced number of people required to hold on to power in our age of digital surveillance. Part of it is the unique culture Mao's Cultural Revolution left behind. The moment of reckoning came when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. Prior to that, China had been lurching towards mastering peaceful transitions of power under intraparty politics. There was legitimate hope it would think and plan for the long term. With a dictator, however, short-term political survival dominates all else. And so we get the absurdity of a billion peoples' productive power being channeled into stamping out Winnie the Pooh imagery.
- mlyle 7y ago
  > So the hypothesis, that a wealthier China would be a more stable, more democratic China wasn't insane. I think the jury is still out. China has a long way left to develop and a huge populace still toiling without the benefits of that wealth. And some of the ways the economic development has happened are IMO temporarily and not durable. > There was legitimate hope it would think and plan for the long term. With a dictator, however, short-term political survival dominates all else. And so we get the absurdity of a billion peoples' productive power being channeled into stamping out Winnie the Pooh imagery. In fairness, I'm not sure that's a huge fraction of the billion peoples' productive power. ;P
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > I'm not sure that's a huge fraction of the billion peoples' productive power The Winnie the Pooh thing is amusing because we like watching powerful people be insecure about childish things. The dirtier side is senior CCP members using the country's wealth for personal gain to a level not seen since the Soviet Union [1]. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9365099/Chinas-incoming-president-Xi-Jinpings-family-has-wealth-of-hundreds-of-millions.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/936509...
dmix 7y ago
The US is still special in this context where free speech is really taken to heart and extends to not only dissent against the government but even vile extremely unpopular political opinions are protected ...which is something you don't always find in every western country. For example, in Charlottesville 2017 [1] the local government tried to prevent Neo-nazis from using a park for a protest but ACLU sued the gov and got approval. From there the police actively protected their right to protest. Which really highlights the massive gap between the US and China. It's not just 'don't silence them' but they have a right to speak and be protected while protesting on public grounds by the state from violence by other government organizations and citizens who disagree with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Permits_and_court_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Permits_...
- tpmx 7y ago
  I'd like to say you're wrong... but anti free speech legislation is growing like mad in Europe. :/ (Of course it's always under the guise of "harmony". F*ck, we're beginning to resemble the PRC.)
  - dmix 7y ago
    It's something that's far easier to take away than it is to stand for and defend. That's why it being enshrined in constitutions and a strong legal culture of defending it is so important. Short-term thinking and people missing the forest for the trees after some emotional event is far too common for it to be trusted in the hands of the average politician.
  - baq 7y ago
    this is because free speech on the internet is a powerful tool and it is abused by non-european nation states to influence european voters. smart dictators understand this and firewalled themselves off ages ago, resulting in asymmetry of freedom of speech == capability to influence masses.
- ummwhat 7y ago
  I say succinctly "you cannot silence the Americans. They don't know how to shut up". If the foreigner doesn't feel it, they'll at least find it funny.
golergka 7y ago
Is it? Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly on US side in this one - but Russia, India, Brazil, and many, many other world powers aren't particularly opposed to China on this one. They're trying to implement the same domestic capabilities, and indeed agree with China's opinion on national sovereignity and limitations of speech. It was a great time, when US could dictate the world it's values and the world listened - as much as HN public loves to bash US government (I guess, a concious person is always critical of his own country), it's still one of the best democracies in the world. But that time is gone. Liberal consensus is not "the world"'s opinion anymore.
wefarrell 7y ago
This is not one culture or part of the world vs another. This is liberalism vs totalitarianism. Totalitarians are successfully using the tools of liberalism against itself. It's time that we in the free world wake up to what's happening and fight back.
pfortuny 7y ago
I understand what you are trying to convey but it always harms me to be told that I have had idealistic hopes with China. I always have said that the Olympics was the great self inflicted humiliation of the Western world before China...
eternalban 7y ago
> And the western world has been incredibly naive and uncoordinated when it comes to dealing with China. Some of us were paying attention in the '90s and we're still paying attention. Here are some interesting items to review: 1 - McDonnell Douglas (yep the same gang that ruined Boeing): https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/business/mcdonnell-douglas-in-1-billion-chinese-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/business/mcdonnell-dougla... 2 - "Pentagon Blessing" https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB832727883654550000 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB832727883654550000 3 - https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/20/us/us-indicts-mcdonnell-douglas-and-chinese-in-equipment-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/20/us/us-indicts-mcdonnell-d... 4 - https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-american-financiers https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-amer... 5 - https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe... 6 - https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-tech-transfer-is-key-to-stronger-china-israel-ties/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-tech-transfe... "naive and uncoordinated" It has always seemed rather coordinated to this observer. No comment regarding "naive". "We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal" Who is this "We"? Did we take a vote on this? This was decided on high up per some undisclosed calculus like everything else substantial while the corporate media beguiles "Us" with peripheral, low brow, histrionics.
- tpmx 7y ago
  Upvoted. (And yeah, I feel like I have been personally aware at least during the past ten years or so. Things move slowly.)
throwawy4trueth 7y ago
China didn't force you to accept their value. But you often (not always) force all the world to accept your cult (with the name of "value" to make it sounds not so irrational) by destroying many countries in Middle East. The biggest threat is the cult because the cult will cause conflicts. Keep it for yourself would be good. Spread it all over the world and claim it's universal so you have right to judge others inferior "value" and even try to enforce your "value" when the other countries are weaker , literally is the same pattern as ISIS.

by tpmx 7y ago

markus_zhang 7y ago

No it's Five eyes and part of EU (excluding UK), and even US has a lot differences with EU.

dmix 7y ago
Sure they have differences but in this context it's very much the western democracy vs authoritarianism, where dissenting opinions are not only tolerated but they are actively protected by the state, usually via an independent judicial body - the most important thing every truly authoritarian country lacks. China's not the first nation state to be at the butting end of this debate and they won't be the last.

justicezyx 7y ago

> We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal Trust me, most Chinese people believed the same thing when they deal with other nations. You either need to label all of them being stupid and naive; or you are saying Chinese are so smarter than anyone else... The deals are never one-sided...

mc32 7y ago

That’s true, but I think unless the US acts other players will stay on the sidelines. Maybe I’ve missed it, but has the EU commenced anything that would address some of the one-sidedness? Others are either indifferent, impotent or maybe even approving of the behavior by the CCP.

Analemma_ 7y ago

Too many people bought into the Fukuyama "end of history" theory whereby free trade and free markets would automatically lead to democracy and liberal values spreading worldwide. It probably seemed like a reasonable hypothesis right after the Soviet Union fell, but at this point it's pretty clear the events of the last decade have debunked it completely. The silver lining is we're a little smarter now and will hopefully make better decisions going forward.

mc32 7y ago
I guess. But it’s worth mentioning that Fukuyama is no longer a Fukuyamaist himself.
- pesmhey 7y ago
  His latest thoughts are on corruption and the difference between the rule of law and patrimonialism. All this, well before the election of Donald Trump. Truly amazing and admirable how calibrated he came back after the massive fail that was the end of history.

ajross 7y ago

> some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western" values of democracy etc just by trading with us Is that really so idealistic though? Like most folks I'm sure, I've worked with a ton of chinese nationals and expatriots over my career. And not one of them was ignorant of this nonsense. They all know it happens. They agree in principle that it's bad, they just tolerate it as part of the cost of growth. And that's not even arguably a bad trade given China's history over the past century. As the PRC's growth slows and it reaches parity with the rest of the world, we'll start to see more tension in this space (arguably that's exactly what's happening in Hong Kong right now). And there's danger there, obviously. But the problem isn't one of "ideals", "values" or "free speech". The values are already there.

jimclegg 7y ago

Not the world vs China, it has always been the West vs China, European leaders' "zero sum" mentality has made it an economic target for the better part of 2+ centuries. Please don't include the majority of the world that is benefiting from a new benevolent economic actor on the block.

ashelmire 7y ago
You're considering China to be a new benevolent economic actor? Can you explain what behavior you consider "benevolent"?
- jimclegg 7y ago
  The "well planned" foreign infrastructure projects have had positive impacts on the local communities and economies. They provide access to loans from an alternative world bank at competitive rates with less strings attached. Adding depth/liquidity to global markets is beneficial to participants.
  - ashelmire 7y ago
    Which of those signifies benevolence? What foreign infrastructure projects? Surely not the ones where they lend money to foreigners but then China owns them? That's just investment, it's not benevolent. The same for providing loans. Neither of these are benevolent - they are financial tools to gain traction and influence on the world stage, as well as to make money. I don't think we can attribute any positive intent (towards the rest of the world) to these behaviors.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  If you think unparalleled manufacturing expertise at unparalleled prices isn't an economic gain for the entire world you need to open your biased eyes wider. Yes the west and china are economic rivals. This does not mean China has zero economic benefit to the world. To not see this is utter blindness.
  - 7y ago

mfer 7y ago

The world vs China? The US, Canada, the EU, and Australia make up less than 20% of the worlds population. India, the many countries of Africa and South and Central America are places I've not heard from on this. And, there is a large population there. Is it the world vs China or the parts of the world we typically listen to vs China?

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
India has had its own problems with China. Not the same as the west’s for sure, but then again they have a direct border with each other and a large territory dispute.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
guelo 7y ago
China is applying economic pressure across the world to get its way. If they pull this shit on the US imagine what they can get away with with smaller poorer countries.
- mfer 7y ago
  Large businesses often have rules around single sourcing of anything. They don't want that single source to cause them problems if something happens to it. For example, even if they buy 90% of their servers from HPE they may still get 10% from Dell to have multiple suppliers. It would be wise for many organizations to take that idea and apply it to countries of origin for their things. That way instability in a region doesn't threaten things back home. This doesn't help things like the NBA whose revenue model is based on bodies and eyeballs. But, it can help some industries break control... as long as they have goals other than to gain all the money.
jimclegg 7y ago
It takes a certain level of Eurocentricism to believe roughly 4 countries are the world.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Native Americans were the same way when they didn't want to latch on to Western ideals. It takes a lot to learn the right way to do things including forcefully taking land and slaughter. What people don't understand is that Western democracy is the only and best way to run the world. I mean look at public transport infrastructure in the United States. Public transport in the United States is so fair and democratic that it's been over two decades and they still haven't been able to ring the Bart around the bay or build a high speed rail thanks to the government being fair and balanced. I mean look at chinas lack of human rights. They throw a few people out their homes to build an entire high speed rail network across the entire country. More people may benefit from this but it is a serious violation of human rights to move a couple people to another place. Literally borderline evil. Lifting an entire population out of poverty isn't worth giving up a fair and balanced democracy where everyone can fairly debate about a policy for 20 years before anything gets done. I'm not saying that the US is perfect. But china needs to take a good hard look at the US and realize that their way isn't the only way of doing things. I mean people in the United States aren't so biased as to insult china on every opportunity as an economic rival. People in the west are actually unbiased and have a fair and balanced outlook on the world just like the parent poster. Literally china is like a small child saying that it's the entire world against the United States. This is an immature way of solving a problem or working together.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal, in some kind of idealistic hope that the Chinese would latch on to "western" values of democracy etc just by trading with us To expand on this, the history of economic and democratic development were thought to go hand in hand. Not only had it borne out in Western Europe, it also showed traction in post-war Japan and India. So the hypothesis, that a wealthier China would become more stable and democratic wasn't insane. That hypothesis has been proven false. Part of this is the reduced number of people required to hold on to power in our age of digital surveillance. Part of it is the unique culture Mao's Cultural Revolution left behind. The moment of reckoning came when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. Prior to that, China had been lurching towards mastering peaceful transitions of power under intraparty politics. There was legitimate hope it would think and plan for the long term. With a dictator, however, short-term political survival dominates all else. And so we get the absurdity of a billion peoples' productive power being channeled into stamping out Winnie the Pooh imagery.

mlyle 7y ago
> So the hypothesis, that a wealthier China would be a more stable, more democratic China wasn't insane. I think the jury is still out. China has a long way left to develop and a huge populace still toiling without the benefits of that wealth. And some of the ways the economic development has happened are IMO temporarily and not durable. > There was legitimate hope it would think and plan for the long term. With a dictator, however, short-term political survival dominates all else. And so we get the absurdity of a billion peoples' productive power being channeled into stamping out Winnie the Pooh imagery. In fairness, I'm not sure that's a huge fraction of the billion peoples' productive power. ;P
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > I'm not sure that's a huge fraction of the billion peoples' productive power The Winnie the Pooh thing is amusing because we like watching powerful people be insecure about childish things. The dirtier side is senior CCP members using the country's wealth for personal gain to a level not seen since the Soviet Union [1]. [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9365099/Chinas-incoming-president-Xi-Jinpings-family-has-wealth-of-hundreds-of-millions.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/936509...

dmix 7y ago

The US is still special in this context where free speech is really taken to heart and extends to not only dissent against the government but even vile extremely unpopular political opinions are protected ...which is something you don't always find in every western country. For example, in Charlottesville 2017 [1] the local government tried to prevent Neo-nazis from using a park for a protest but ACLU sued the gov and got approval. From there the police actively protected their right to protest. Which really highlights the massive gap between the US and China. It's not just 'don't silence them' but they have a right to speak and be protected while protesting on public grounds by the state from violence by other government organizations and citizens who disagree with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Permits_and_court_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Permits_...

tpmx 7y ago
I'd like to say you're wrong... but anti free speech legislation is growing like mad in Europe. :/ (Of course it's always under the guise of "harmony". F*ck, we're beginning to resemble the PRC.)
- dmix 7y ago
  It's something that's far easier to take away than it is to stand for and defend. That's why it being enshrined in constitutions and a strong legal culture of defending it is so important. Short-term thinking and people missing the forest for the trees after some emotional event is far too common for it to be trusted in the hands of the average politician.
- baq 7y ago
  this is because free speech on the internet is a powerful tool and it is abused by non-european nation states to influence european voters. smart dictators understand this and firewalled themselves off ages ago, resulting in asymmetry of freedom of speech == capability to influence masses.
ummwhat 7y ago
I say succinctly "you cannot silence the Americans. They don't know how to shut up". If the foreigner doesn't feel it, they'll at least find it funny.

golergka 7y ago

Is it? Don't misunderstand me, I'm certainly on US side in this one - but Russia, India, Brazil, and many, many other world powers aren't particularly opposed to China on this one. They're trying to implement the same domestic capabilities, and indeed agree with China's opinion on national sovereignity and limitations of speech. It was a great time, when US could dictate the world it's values and the world listened - as much as HN public loves to bash US government (I guess, a concious person is always critical of his own country), it's still one of the best democracies in the world. But that time is gone. Liberal consensus is not "the world"'s opinion anymore.

wefarrell 7y ago

This is not one culture or part of the world vs another. This is liberalism vs totalitarianism. Totalitarians are successfully using the tools of liberalism against itself. It's time that we in the free world wake up to what's happening and fight back.

pfortuny 7y ago

I understand what you are trying to convey but it always harms me to be told that I have had idealistic hopes with China. I always have said that the Olympics was the great self inflicted humiliation of the Western world before China...

eternalban 7y ago

> And the western world has been incredibly naive and uncoordinated when it comes to dealing with China. Some of us were paying attention in the '90s and we're still paying attention. Here are some interesting items to review: 1 - McDonnell Douglas (yep the same gang that ruined Boeing): https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/business/mcdonnell-douglas-in-1-billion-chinese-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/29/business/mcdonnell-dougla... 2 - "Pentagon Blessing" https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB832727883654550000 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB832727883654550000 3 - https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/20/us/us-indicts-mcdonnell-douglas-and-chinese-in-equipment-deal.html https://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/20/us/us-indicts-mcdonnell-d... 4 - https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-american-financiers https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-amer... 5 - https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israel-passes-u-s-military-technology-to-china https://www.military.com/defensetech/2013/12/24/report-israe... 6 - https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-tech-transfer-is-key-to-stronger-china-israel-ties/ https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-tech-transfe... "naive and uncoordinated" It has always seemed rather coordinated to this observer. No comment regarding "naive". "We've all accepted the incredibly one-sided deal" Who is this "We"? Did we take a vote on this? This was decided on high up per some undisclosed calculus like everything else substantial while the corporate media beguiles "Us" with peripheral, low brow, histrionics.

tpmx 7y ago
Upvoted. (And yeah, I feel like I have been personally aware at least during the past ten years or so. Things move slowly.)

throwawy4trueth 7y ago

China didn't force you to accept their value. But you often (not always) force all the world to accept your cult (with the name of "value" to make it sounds not so irrational) by destroying many countries in Middle East. The biggest threat is the cult because the cult will cause conflicts. Keep it for yourself would be good. Spread it all over the world and claim it's universal so you have right to judge others inferior "value" and even try to enforce your "value" when the other countries are weaker , literally is the same pattern as ISIS.